I feel the same way about all parts of the Middle East: the less we're involved in it, the better.
Lady Gaga/Nikki Minaj 2016
Because you know we're all about our base, 'bout our base, no rebels...
Ah, so the Bush Administration fought "half assed?" What are you expecting, total war?However we need to stop fighting wars in a half assed way.
Sounds great. Now whats your master plan to end an ideology with drone strikes and tomahawk missiles?And we need to give the military clear objectives and avoid hamstringing them with limited rules of engagement.
They will be there for a very very long time.The objective should be victory and a contingent of troops should remain behind long enough to guarantee the peace.
Until they realized their emperor was no God. How are you going to convince the radical Muslims their brand of religion is wrong?We still have troops in both Germany and Japan. And Japanese fighters were every bit as fanatical as Islamic extremists.
No, it is the neocons who bury their heads in the sand. Recognizing our current strategy creates more terrorists is acknowledging reality. We need to strike at the root of the problem to truly end this fundamentalism.Suggesting that we should not fight Islamic extremism because we are afraid they will use the fight to recruit more extremists is the same thing as burying our heads in the sand.
And replaced by another terror group...ISIS could have been destroyed in Syria a year ago,
"Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
I am not talking about just on the battlefield or the white house. I am talking about congress as well. I don't like war anymore then you do...however if we do go to war, we should be all in and treat it as a war. Give the troops a clear objective of victory and support them in accomplishing it.Ah, so the Bush Administration fought "half assed?" What are you expecting, total war?
I am not the idiot who telegraphed his punches to the enemy by publicly ruling out ground troops.Sounds great. Now whats your master plan to end an ideology with drone strikes and tomahawk missiles?
Perhaps, however that's better then leaving too soon and having to come back. We still have a contingent of troops in Germany and Japan.They will be there for a very very long time.
We had similar difficulty convincing Japanese troops that the emperor was not a god. Eventually ISIS will fall due to it's own brutality, however in the meantime we cannot let them run amok. If we do.....they will show up in New York or Los Angeles next.Until they realized their emperor was no God. How are you going to convince the radical Muslims their brand of religion is wrong?
Ahh...the ole "we should not fight them because we might piss them off" anology.No, it is the neocons who bury their heads in the sand. Recognizing our current strategy creates more terrorists is acknowledging reality.
That will be up to the more moderate Islamic world. Eventually they are going to have to stand up against fanatics taking over their religion. In the meantime, we cannot just sit idly by and allow them to create terrorist states.We need to strike at the root of the problem to truly end this fundamentalism.
I have my doubts that another group as nasty as ISIS will come along.And replaced by another terror group...
There are times that military action is justified. Reagan gave fair warning to Gaddafy to leave America and Americans alone. So when Lybian terrorist's fire bombed a peaceful bar occupied by Americans, Reagan immediately sent our fighters to bomb the hell out of one of his strongholds in Lybia. This was pure, simple retaliation with no goal in mind other than swift, terrible, and very expensive/destructive retaliation. And it worked. We didn't hear a peep out of Gaddafy for decades after that.
It was necessary for us to react swiftly, terribly, and destructively to the attack on 9/11. We picked the right target and were extremely effective in taking out most of the enemy. Then with mission accomplished, we should have returned home. It would have been seen as just and appropriate retaliation by the rest of the world and would unlikely have encouraged other such attacks.
It was necessary for us to get rid of the albatross hung around our neck that Iraq had become. Ten years of sanctions had not only enormously enriched, emboldened, and made Saddam Hussein more vile and cruel, but it was funding his export of terrorist activities. Meanwhile most of the Iraqi people were suffering terribly. But we should have gone in with overwhelming force, done the inspections that Saddam had not allowed, destroyed all the chemical warfare making plants and war making machine, confiscated the weapons from Saddam's Republican Guard, taken out Hussein, and left.
If the attack on Lybia is a serious and deadly retaliation for capturing and murdering our people, so be it. If they know it will happen again if they do it again, it definitely could be a deterrence for that sort of thing. But if it is a wag the dog kind of thing in advance of the November election or is supposed to be seen as some kind of brave, noble thing with no idea of what victory will look like, then that's a bad thing.
I'm withholding my opinion about it until I know more about what they are actually doing.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Iraq I wasn't thrilled about, mostly because of Afghanistan. Going on two nation building exercises at the same time seemed to me at the time to be just a bad idea. Still does. Saddam was a bad guy, and eventually needed to go. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem like that one was thought through - we created a power vacuum, and then let it degenerate into a ****storm. I don't know if the thinking was that they were ready with a democracy just in case, but it really seems like it was.
My criticism of both of these wars, not to mention the situation in Ukraine is that we didn't really teach anyone how a democratically elected government works. Afghanistan had two men claiming to be the "rightful" winner of the election, and neither was willing to accept that they lost. In Iraq, we didn't really teach them that you have to treat minorities with a little respect and share power. In Ukraine, we're backing the people who "want" democracy as long as the other guy doesn't win.
If we want democratic experiments to work, we have to teach them somehow that it doesn't mean always getting your way. But it's even emblematic in how our government is run now - nobody here seems to want to share power without having a temper tantrum (left or right).
I think it perfectly acceptable to be continuously challenged when considering foreign policy engagements. That's why I selected, "It's complicated." I, myself, had curiously moved back and forth between support and skepticism in engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I've settled on being inherently uninterested in democratic nation building, but not against destroying terrorist cells. Whilst I'm continuing to be skeptical of the need for a significant war presently and am concerned with its lasting impact on America's bottom line, I am nevertheless torn on whether or not such sacrifices may be inherently necessary to prevent attacks on our soil or those of our choicest allies.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963